Sportra logo
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
HomeLive ScoresLeaguesNewsAboutSportra IntelligenceContactPrivacyCookiesTermsDMCAAttribution

© 2026 Sportra. All rights reserved.

Built by TwinForge · TwinsLegacy

Lincoln vs Cardiff Match Statistics & xG

LILincolnLincoln
2 — 1FT…
CACardiffCardiff
OverviewLineupsStatisticsStandingsEventsPlayersPredictionsOdds (pre)Odds (live)FormInjuriesH2HNews

Lincoln vs Cardiff match statistics

xG, possession, shots, and full match statistics for Lincoln vs Cardiff in League One.

Updated 2026-05-10T00:22:33.350448Z

Match statistics snapshot

  • Cardiff created the clearer chances on xG (1.88 vs 2.54, Δ 0.66).
  • Lincoln fired more attempts (18 vs 11 shots).
  • Cardiff held more of the ball (67% possession).
LILincolnLincolnvsCardiffCACardiff

Attacking

Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.

LincolnStatisticCardiff
1.88
Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count.
2.54Lead
3
OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines.
1Lead
10Lead
Shots inside the box
8
8Lead
Shots off target
4
7Lead
Shots on target
4
8Lead
Shots outside the box
3
18Lead
Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target.
11

Possession & passing

How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.

LincolnStatisticCardiff
33%
Ball possession
67%Lead
72%
Pass accuracy
86%Lead
192
Accurate passes
484Lead
266
Total passes
562Lead

Set pieces

Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.

LincolnStatisticCardiff
4Lead
Corner kicks
3

Defensive & goalkeeping

Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.

LincolnStatisticCardiff
3
Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced.
3
2
Goalkeeper saves
6Lead
Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average.

Discipline

Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.

LincolnStatisticCardiff
12
Fouls
11Lead
Red cards
3
Yellow cards
1Lead

Tactical insights

Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.

LincolnCardiff
◎

Shooting efficiency

How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.

Cardiff leads this block

1Lincoln
duels won
2Cardiff

Cardiff leads shot quality (+121% vs Lincoln)

  1. 1

    Shot accuracy

    Share of attempts that tested the goalkeeper — accuracy vs volume.

    Lincoln39%52% share
    vs
    Cardiff36%48% share

    Lincoln leads (39% vs 36%).

  2. 2

    xG per shot

    Average danger per attempt. Higher means better chances, not just more shots.

    Lincoln0.10431% share
    vs
    Cardiff0.23169% share

    Cardiff leads shot quality (+121% vs Lincoln)

  3. 3

    Inside box ratio

    How often attacks reached the penalty area — proxy for box penetration.

    Lincoln56%43% share
    vs
    Cardiff73%57% share

    Cardiff leads box penetration (+31% vs Lincoln)

⇄

Tactical identity

Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.

Lincoln leads this block

2Lincoln
duels won
0Cardiff

Lincoln leads possession efficiency (+50% vs Cardiff)

  1. 1

    xG per possession %

    Chance creation per share of the ball — separates sterile possession from threat.

    Lincoln0.05760% share
    vs
    Cardiff0.03840% share

    Lincoln leads possession efficiency (+50% vs Cardiff)

  2. 2

    Passes per shot

    Build-up length before shooting. Higher = more patient circulation; lower = direct vertical play.

    Lincoln1522% share
    vs
    Cardiff5178% share

    Cardiff — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

↑

Pressure & control

Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.

Lincoln leads this block

1Lincoln
duels won
0Cardiff

Lincoln leads territorial pressure (+31% vs Cardiff)

  1. 1

    Attack pressure score

    Weighted territorial score: in-box shots (×2) + corners + on-target efforts + blocks forced.

    Lincoln3457% share
    vs
    Cardiff2643% share

    Lincoln leads territorial pressure (+31% vs Cardiff)

⛨

Defensive

How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.

1Lincoln
duels won
1Cardiff

Cardiff — stronger shot quality allowed

  1. 1

    xGA per shot conceded

    Quality of chances allowed per opponent shot — lower means a compact, limiting defence.

    Lincoln0.23169% share
    vs
    Cardiff0.10431% share

    Cardiff — stronger shot quality allowed

  2. 2

    Save difficulty (xG faced ÷ saves)

    xG faced divided by saves made — higher means the keeper faced tougher stops.

    Lincoln1.2780% share
    vs
    Cardiff0.3120% share

    Lincoln leads keeper workload (+305% vs Cardiff)

◈

Gameplay profile

Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.

3Lincoln
duels won
3Cardiff
  1. 1

    Aggression rating

    Fouls and cards combined — physical intensity and risk.

    Lincoln18.058% share
    vs
    Cardiff13.042% share

    Lincoln leads (18.0 vs 13.0).

  2. 2

    Control rating

    Possession blended with pass accuracy — control without chaos.

    Lincoln23.829% share
    vs
    Cardiff57.671% share

    Cardiff leads (57.6 vs 23.8).

  3. 3

    Siege pressure

    Corners plus in-box shots — sustained pressure around the box.

    Lincoln14.056% share
    vs
    Cardiff11.044% share

    Lincoln leads (14.0 vs 11.0).

  4. 4

    Clinical index (xG/shot)

    xG per shot — finishing threat independent of volume.

    Lincoln0.10431% share
    vs
    Cardiff0.23169% share

    Cardiff leads (0.231 vs 0.104).

  5. 5

    Defensive compactness

    Inverse of xGA per shot faced — higher means opponents got worse chances.

    Lincoln76.946% share
    vs
    Cardiff89.654% share

    Cardiff leads (89.6 vs 76.9).

  6. 6

    Chaos factor

    Fouls, cards, and blocks — how stop-start and disruptive the match felt.

    Lincoln18.055% share
    vs
    Cardiff15.045% share

    Lincoln leads (18.0 vs 15.0).